Draft Summary of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Science and Technical Support Work Group Meeting

Room 836 - Mutual Building

September 10, 1996

Durham, North Carolina

The Science and Technical Support Work Group of the FACA Subcommittee met on Tuesday, September 10, 1996 between 2:30 pm and 4:00 pm EDT in Durham, North Carolina. A list of the participants and a summary of the meeting follows.

Work Group Participants

Name	Affiliation

Harvey Jeffries, Co-Chair	University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill

John Cabaniss	AIAM

Kirit Chaudhari	Virginia

David Chock	Ford Motor Company

Bruce Hill	Appalachian Mountain Club

Jay Hudson	Santee-Cooper

Tom Moore	Arizona

S.T. Rao	New York

Jay Rosenthal	USN

Mark Scruggs	DOI

Jeffrey West	NARSTO-NE

Steve Ziman	Chevron Corporation

Work Group Members Not Participating

Tom Helms, Co-Chair	U.S. EPA

Diana Andrews	Kentucky

Glenn Cass	Cal Tech

John Core	WESTAR

Dave McNeill	Utah

Rich Poirot	Vermont

Jay Turner	DOT

Manop Vanichchagorn	Louisiana

Dan Weiss	Cinergy Corporation

Non-Work Group Participants

Deirdre Farrell, (Resources for the Future); Mike Teague, UARG; Pradeep Saxena, EPRI; Leon Outlaw, Santee Cooper; Bob Judge, EPA Region I; Charlene Spells, U.S. EPA/IPSG; Scott Mathias, EPA/ISEG; Jim Berry, EPA/MG; and JoAnn Allman, David Cole, Bill Johnson, Annie Nikbakht, David Sanders, and David Stonefield, U.S. EPA/OPSG.

Summary of the Conference Call

David Sanders began the conference call by noting that Tom Helms would not be participating in this call. He continued by stating that the bulk of the conference call would be devoted to discussing four issue papers that have been developed by the Base Programs Analysis and Policies (BPAP) Work Group. Topics of these issue papers included: New Source Review (NSR), attainment dates, regional haze, and integrated implementation. In addition, Mr. Sanders asked Tom Moore to discuss the available information on tools and resources for achieving the deadlines in the BPAP timelines.

BPAP Issue Papers

Integrated Implementation

Mark Scruggs was asked to discuss the issue paper addressing integrated implementation. Mr. Scruggs responded that he was not prepared to address the Work Group at this time regarding this issue paper.

Attainment Dates

John Cabaniss noted that at least with regards to science, the attainment date issue is simple. He stated that the BPAP Work Group has developed an issue paper listing options for setting attainment dates. These options are:

To use the approach found in Section 172 where attainment must be achieved in 5 years and may be given an extension up to 10 years.

To develop an approach where the time frame is scaled depending upon the classification of the area. This approach is similar to the approach found in Section 181.

To develop an approach where some type of reasonable further progress (RFP) is used. A sub-option under this approach would be to have 10 year planning cycles. If the area did not achieve attainment within the first 10 years, the State would get another 10 year planning cycle. More stringent controls would be required for each successive planning cycle.

Mr. Cabaniss stated that from a science perspective the main issue is how can you determine measurements for RFP. He added that he was also concerned about an early emissions reduction program stating that we need to make sure that the reductions would result in air quality improvements.

Harvey Jeffries asked if the BPAP Work Group was clear on what constituted attainment. Mr. Cabaniss responded that they were not clear on this issue. Harvey Jeffries added that the BPAP Work Group seems to have ignored the issue of areas that go in and out of attainment. S.T. Rao stated that RFP should be related to emissions and air quality tracking. Steve Ziman agreed, adding that tracking only emissions is flaky. He suggested that emission reduction strategies based solely on reducing emissions may not improve air quality. Harvey Jeffries added that the BPAP Work Group needs to define what being in attainment means.

Deirdre Farrell stated that she would appreciate seeing alternative measures of progress. Harvey Jeffries asked Steve Ziman and S.T. Rao to send their comments to John Cabaniss. S.T. Rao reiterated that EPA needs to relate emission control policies and improvements in air quality. Steve Ziman noted that EPA has issued a report by Charlie Blanchard which contains a new approach to demonstrating attainment. The number for this document is 4D1577NATA/4D1653NASA.

John Cabaniss noted that the way this issue paper is framed it focuses on dates, not how, you should measure attainment. Steve Ziman added that this seems to be the first time that anyone has recognized that if you start from scratch this is a six year process at the minimum.

S.T. Rao suggested that years should not be identified in the attainment approach adding that five years is too short for these areas to reach attainment. Harvey Jeffries stated that maybe a minimum number of years should be identified and that we should give typical examples of attainment based on past experience.

David Stonefield asked if someone would be available to pull together the time frames for getting input to the FACA Subcommittee. David Sanders asked the Work Group if they needed to increase calls to a weekly basis until the FACA meeting, at least to discuss these three issue papers. S.T. Rao responded, asking David Sanders to be careful not to overload the work group members' schedules.

John Cabaniss stated that he would complete his review of the issue paper in steps. First, he would pull together a short one-page summary of preliminary feedback to the BPAP Work Group. Next, he would put together a more detailed analysis and time table by September 23, 1996.

Regional Haze

Mark Scruggs noted that the last issue paper on regional haze he received was dated August 9, 1996. He asked for someone to fax him the latest copy.

Bob Judge noted that he is concerned about the issue of double counting. David Sanders asked if we could table the discussion on double counting to another call.

Tom Moore noted that their are several metrics and/or timelines that need to be addressed. First, what emissions metric do we use for the national visibility goal. Second, when tracking visibility impairment what data do we use - 5 year average? Steve Ziman added that impairment is unlike the criteria pollutants where attainment is mandated. Mr. Ziman stated that visibility is a goal. He asked what kind of reductions other than those mandated will make a change in visibility. He also asked if visibility will drive the entire basis of emission reductions. Bruce Hill noted that in different regions you have different pollutants causing visibility impairment.

Tom Moore stated that the BPAP Work Group did not address how you would make regional haze fit the NAAQS time frame. Harvey Jeffries suggested that we treat Class I areas as areas of violation (AOVs). Tom Moore said that the problem facing the west is how to avoid making haze uniform in the west. He added that the east already has uniform loading. Mr. Moore suggested that we need to get a better handle on areas of influence (AOI) and AOVs.

Mark Scruggs added that using annual averages makes it difficult to assess visibility. Additionally, Harvey Jeffries stated that there is not enough climatological data to establish patterns for impairment episodes. Steve Ziman noted that all of these issues have something in common - what information do you use as a basis for any of these topics (attainment dates, NSR, etc.).

Tools and Resources to Meet Timeline

Tom Moore stated that we need to define what information is required to accomplish the tasks identified in the timeline. For example, what information and/or resources do we need to address regionality.

Steve Ziman stated that he is trying to find a short description on what types of models NARSTO is using. Tom Moore stated that he is willing to use any model but would like for the model to be focused at the national level. Jeff West added that NARSTO is focused at the national level. Steve Ziman questioned what the basic data need would be for the models. Harvey Jeffries suggested that we need to identify the resources that were needed to complete previous air quality studies while noting what we learned from these studies. Jay Rosenthal added that visibility data form air fields is one of the most readily available data sets. John Cabaniss suggested that the Work Group needs to list all factual databases that are available. He added that this will give the Science and Technical Work Group credibility.

The face to face meeting will be held after October 15, 1996. The most likely time will be during the last week in October. The next conference call is scheduled for Friday, September 20, 1996, from 2:30 - 4:00 pm.